The New Diplomacy

The new diplomacy itself is very important issue. Nowadays diplomatic relations plays very huge and irreplaceable role in relations between countries, not only in political issues and aspects but also in economic relations as well. In previous times diplomats of different countries have had some difficulties in negotiations and one of the reasons were language barrier, but now "English language" is almost known worldwide , in every part of the world it is possible to meet people who speaks English language, and technology of course is the great advantage nowadays in diplomatic relations, due to rapid technological improvements many diplomats are negotiating via telephones, or even computers, it is now very accessible and easy, the world is improving very fast and with the world diplomatic and international relations are going ahead as well. There are many important aspects of New Diplomacy. In my opinion the non-state actors are playing very huge role in diplomatic relations and especially NGOs. " The effect of NGO activity on the diplomatic process varies enormously with the issues at hand, the NGOs involved , their leadership, their networking proficiency, and the forums in which decisions are made. Nation-states and international organizations remain the major players in the diplomatic process, but the role of NGOs has greatly expanded". ( The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux, page 105) Actually NGOs has right to take part in diplomatic process and also has right to participate in UN General Assembly and many other organizations. " NGOs may affect the diplomatic process when they succeed in rallying public support behind diplomatic initiatives or, contrariwise, in generating massive opposition". ( The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux, page 106) NGOs also participated in UN conferences and succeeded. I would like to mention Multinational corporations role in New diplomacy as well. they also have their impacts on diplomatic issues. "MNCs have engaged in diplomacy of their own, aside from their lobbying and other political activities in their countries of origin" ( Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux, page 115) MNCs same as NGOs participated in UN conferences and also have connections with government in order to establish and improve their economic and business views and interests.In my opinion it is very difficult to define what is the most important aspect of diplomacy, because less or more all of them have their impacts and has their roles in Diplomacy. Nowadays diplomatic relations are standing at the top in governments international plans.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF DIPLOMACY TODAY

The concept of diplomacy is still unclear to me to these days, as i think that diplomacy can only be defined and perceived in the context of the modern political environment. However the implications that the concept implies are far greater then just defining diplomacy.At the present time, although more acquainted and more certain of my knowledge of diplomacy, i could not assert to conclude that i have a very good insight on the matter.

The political environment in which the modern diplomacy has developed and has taken new turn, from the secrecy that defined the traditional diplomacy to the transparency of the new diplomacy has been determined by the political actions and the global political state of affairs.
A short introduction of the present state of affairs will afford more clarity on the concept of new diplomacy today.
Budrillard has refers to our modern era "as being an age of media over simulation amid copies of reality so intense that they put the real to shame."(Baudrillard,1983). Having said that, i am trying to underline the fact that regardless of the events that are taken place in the world, the public opinion as the media are subjected to a serious of interpretations that are not always reflective of reality.
The access to information and the lack of control by the state as far as conception, political ideas, diplomacy is conducted are the ones defining the way the political environment is shaped. It is very difficult to reach a conclusion that will indeed provide a clear understanding of the concept of diplomacy. I can only assume that diplomacy is a way in which things, state interactions, agreements, political acceptance are achieved, other than that is very little that i can assert on the subject of diplomacy. It is ever so complex and as everything that is multi-layered is difficult to summarize in a few words and especially in such a short time.
Diplomacy is a far complex concept and i think requires longer time and an in depth research in order to be able to reach a more accurate understanding of it.

Diplomacy revised

Looking back at my first impressions of diplomacy at the beginning of the module, I realise that I had a rather narrow perception of diplomacy and the role of diplomats. I thought diplomats would mainly engage in “high politics” and the only “new” factor in the conduct of diplomacy would be that negotiations are less secret and more open to the public.

Throughout the module I learned that “high politics”, in terms of power politics, have become less and less important due to high interdependence between countries especially within the developed world. Diplomats are now more concerned with “low politics” issue areas such as trade diplomacy and public diplomacy.

The attention countries give to the latter has been nicely highlighted during the visit of the Dutch embassy. Our host at the Dutch embassy, who actually was the Cultural & Public Diplomacy attaché if I remember it correctly, emphasised that Public Diplomacy and the promotion of Dutch values has become one of the paramount factors of their work. He explained that culture is the best way of building and fostering relationships with other countries, as it is less political but more about common values and norms. The Dutch embassy is therefore in constant contact with cultural organisations and takes part in a variety of education, arts and sports programmes.

This highlights an vital component of the new diplomacy: diplomats do not only talk to and negotiate with other diplomats, but they engage with a variety of actors and directly with the public. In this regard diplomacy has become more open and accessible to the wider public, but it also has become more inclusive in terms of the actors participating in diplomacy. In some issue areas, particularly in trade and environmental diplomacy, NGOs have become a crucial part in the diplomatic conduct. Their expertise, their networks and their reputation makes them useful partners for diplomats to deal with increasingly complex agendas.

Interestingly, however, as much as diplomacy incorporates new factors of openness and inclusiveness and adapts to the changing environment of world politics, some characteristics of the “old” diplomacy remain persistently.

For example, even though NGOs increasingly participate in negotiations they often remain in the lobbyist or observer position, the exclusive status and the privileges of diplomats remain. Diplomats still enjoy protection and privileges which will probably never be accredited to non-state actors, as they will remain in a crucial, but supplementary role. Also the role of embassies remains essential for diplomacy, even though advances in ICT and transport could make resident embassies redundant. Again the visit of the Dutch embassies offered some interesting insights on this topic, which confirmed the literature by Hocking on EU-oriented bilateralism. Our host explained that through the increasing importance of the European Union bilateral embassies within the EU have become more significant. Since policies when presented in Brussels are often already fixed, the lobbying and the alliance forming process to influence decisions and policies made in Brussels has to take place prior to the negotiations within the bilateral embassies of the member states. Furthermore, in the case of crisis diplomacy the characteristics of the “old” diplomacy, i.e. secrecy, threat of force and high politics, still prevail.

Diplomacy has become increasingly complex as world politics has become more and more complex. In some issue areas the factors of the old diplomacy are dominant, in others characteristics of the new diplomacy prevail. Diplomats had to transform themselves from messengers and negotiators on high politics to communicators with the public and to lobbyists in all kinds of issue areas.

This module has broadened my understanding of diplomacy. Due to the prestigious profession of diplomats, their work often seems far away from the ordinary citizen. However, studying the diversity of diplomatic conduct I can now identify diplomatic practices in the political day-to-day life. Diplomacy is a vibrant and constanly evolving area of world politics, which links changes and events of International Relations to the practice of dealing with them.

The End of the Beginning

Months, weeks and days have gone by when I first engaged myself identifying characteristics of new and old diplomacy. I remember when we had to write on pieces of papers to explain what we knew about diplomacy. Many people wrote a lot about stuff that didn’t have any relevance to diplomacy.

Arriving at the final crossroad, I have realized that the effort taken in the old diplomacy was effortless but it couldn’t stop the acts of war and terror. The new diplomacy has opened a new chapter which illustrates better ways to engage in unilateral, bilateral and multilateral issues affecting national or global politics.
Globalization has drawn us closer to understand each other. Old diplomacy consisted of hard bargainers (liners) who conducted close door meetings on the verge of war, expansionism, militarism and conquest.

Diplomats met knowingly that their decisions or failure to agree could trigger major upsets resulting in total war. The following example from the Voice of America news network news before the Second World War, shows how power politics was played without third party negotiations: ‘Wilson's top adviser at the Paris peace conference was Colonel Edward House. Colonel House had continued negotiations while Wilson was back in the United States. House agreed with Wilson on most issues. Unlike Wilson, however, he believed the Allies' most urgent need was to reach agreement on a peace treaty with Germany. To do this, House was willing to make many more compromises than Wilson on details for the League of Nations.

Wilson was furious when he learned what House had done. He said: "Colonel House has given away everything I had won before I left Paris. He has compromised until nothing remains. Now I have to start all over again. This time, it will be more difficult." For Woodrow Wilson, the most difficult negotiations still lay ahead. That will be our story next week’. http://www.voanews.com/learningenglish/home/a-23-2006-04-12-voa2-83130452.html

The New diplomacy is engaged with checks and balances (Non state actors) which could provide facts and fundamental cases to prevent conflicts. Non state actors in my opinion operate between two parties and are effective because of the facts they present on the negotiation table. Non state actors are closer to the burning fire and understand issues raised at the grass root level. They have a bigger local constituent outreach than government officials from embassies have.
The seminar has given me a clear insight of the various engagements in diplomacy. I have come to realize that, for peace to persist, diplomacy needs to go through a compulsory evolution of unsurmountable heights. The most crucial area diplomacy will have difficulty would be the area of economics because it consists of environmental diplomacy, a complex area which involves the negotiations of cutting back on carbon emissions.

A significant focal point which would proof difficult in having future agreements wouldinvolve the position of developing countries who need more energy, food solutions and water to survive. These factors are likely to trigger new tensions and I strongly believe the new diplomacy has the strength and ability to eradicate serious tensions.

A Better Understanding

When I think back to my first thoughts on diplomacy I am actually shocked at myself. For someone who considers themself to be aware of current affairs and aware of the immense impact that globalization has had on global politics, I cant believe I was ever so narrow-minded. I used to think there was only really one format for a diplomat, that being a person employed by the government of a state who would uphold their states reputation and discuss state business through discourse (mostly in private) with a representative from another state.

The biggest challenge for me was the notion of 'celebrity' diplomacy (see Andrew Coopers book 'Celebrity Dimplomacy') which was hotly debated in one of my seminars. I was arguing that being a celebrity does not qualify someone to represent their country within a political framework. Another student retorted that she did not feel it mattered, so long as the celebrity was furthering a good cause irregardless of any personal gain they would receive. What I found even more surprising is that there is actually a good deal of material on the subject matter as well, obviously this phenomenon is not new and is something which is actually well documented and debated.

It shocks me that some academics still argue over the significance of diplomacy, whether it be the 'old' diplomacy or the 'new'. The idea that the role of creating and maintaining relations with state and non-state actors across the globe is ineffectual as suggested by academics such as Waltz stuns me. I think it is true to say that the face of diplomacy has changed much from the traditional kind and I can understand why, from a realist stand-point concepts such as 'celebrity' diplomacy may not hold much merit. Nevertheless, this new diplomacy seems to work for our global political system in the twenty-first century. I remember my reading for the first week was from Morgethau's 'Politics Among Nations' and I found his argument so convincing. I was completely sold on his idea of the 'four tasks of diplomacy' but now I look back over my notes I realise I'm not the believer I used to be. Morgethau believed a state would fail to achieve its goals under certain conditions - I would argue that diplomacy is not neccessarily restricted to state-to-state parameters. Condition one for failure - not enough power to achieve the ultimate goal. To this I would argue that it is not the solely strength of power that is needed but instead the level of influence. Condition two for failure - the wrong assesment of another states objectives and the power at their disposal. This to me, does not encompass such topics as environmental diplomacy which has to be treated differently to say foreign policy diplomacy. Morganthau also argued that for a diplomat to be successful he/she would need to use a combination of persuasion, compromise and the threat of force. Can you imagine an ambassador for Amnesty International threatening the life of a politician in order to stop the torture of individuals in Guantanamo Bay? The mere thought of it is almost comical! I'm not trying to disagree with Morgethau rather I think his model of diplomacy is more suitable to a very traditional form of diplomacy which does not apply to us today. I will give Morganthau credit, he does highlight what he calls the 'decline' of diplomacy ( I would rather use the term 'evolution') where he notes the end of World War II and the rise of the communications age as the major changing point in diplomacy.

The definition of diplomacy for me has changed greatly since I first started the module all those months ago. Instead of imagining 2 ageing men conversing over politics with a pipe and glass of whisky, I can now look at NGO's promoting fair trade policies or young celebrities speaking of their time helping orphaned children in Haiti. It is with this new insight I am hopeful that individual citizens like you or I may too, in the future, help to shape our world through diplomacy.

My conclusion

Looking back to my first impression on what was my understanding of the title “Diplomacy”, I had a little to say because my knowledge of the subject was very narrow and limited to the general idea of the official representation between countries or the government face of one country in another country. However, going through the module topics I started to have a bigger view on the role of diplomacy in world politics and the changes that occurred to this practice over the time. My knowledge of the subject started to develop from the first topic we tackled and with it my understanding of the difference between old and new ways of conducting Diplomacy, from the old Bilateral residential representation which was conducted in absolute secrecy to the new practices like the Multilateral and the Conference diplomacy which they started to be an important practice of Diplomacy only after the World War One with the creation of the League of Nations. Trade and environmental diplomacy also became vital to the security and stability of the nations. Due to the complexity of trade and environmental negotiations between states and the impact of the different philosophical perspectives that are connected to them, it became imperative at the high level of the international relations to set up new world organisations to control and to regulate both issues especially after the claims about the economical disagreement between Europeans was the cause that led to the start of the First World War. Also one of the big debates we are witnessing at the present time about who to blame for the deterioration of the world environment, also what have to be done to tackle the environmental issues of development. The Public diplomacy is another new practice of Diplomacy, there is different views on this practice as some groups claim that public diplomacy is a ‘propaganda campaign’ by states, they spread lies in order to obtain beneficial gains like the promotion of the state image abroad. other groups disagree with the ‘conspiracy theory’ behind the propaganda claim and have a different view on how public diplomacy is conducted and what is aiming to achieve, moreover, this group see the practice as publicising cultural, economical, historical, and political gains of one state abroad.
Not only I learnt how the methods in the practice are highly controversial, like the secrecy around the negotiations, the lobbying in the corridors, and the propaganda view on some of the practice, but also I learnt how positively Diplomacy evolved in many ways. The amazing speed of technological advances and the breakthrough in the different fields especially of transportation, communications, the media, and many others led to big changes in the conduct of Diplomacy. For example the so cold ‘shuttle Diplomacy’ in which high officials travel from a capital to another in very short period and uses their planes as their offices like with US Force one plane which have an office equipped with the best communication technologies and have everything the president needs from very comfortable bedroom and bathroom to on plane cooker serving him freshly cooked meals, this is to help the president or his foreign minister to deal with the long spells of Diplomatic missions abroad. Also I have to mention the use of new technological devices to communicate between states like the electronic mails and the voice and image speeches like the one made by the president Obama to the Iranian people which was released on the Internet to be easily accessed by the broadest Iranian audiences.
Although all the changes in the conduct of Diplomacy from the ‘Old’ to the ‘New’ were important, however, Diplomacy was affected also by the international political developments like the economical integration areas like the EU and its innovative practice of diplomacy, as the newly created European foreign minister led by Baroness Catherine Ashton which is the first European foreign minister and represented 27 European countries in Haiti after the earthquake disaster that happened in that Caribbean island last year. Another important political development occurred and is growing within the Diplomacy practice. It is the rise of number and importance of non- state actors in the international relations field. Not only their interaction with governments and world organisations led to many changes in the international political and economical system and laid the platforms to solve many issues like environmental summits, but also they forced rich countries to look and poorer countries and help to elevate world poverty in their meeting like the (G8).
To conclude, I must say that my knowledge of the subject has broaden and became wider, also I could see and read clearer than before in the foreign political approach of states and what aspects of Diplomatic are used during conflicts or negotiations.

Au Revoir...

It surly has been a roller coaster, I never knew that old diplomacy entailed so much or rather that it was so varied. Surprisingly I did find it to be a interesting and informative module, there were moments when it felt like “information overload” but none the less it was enjoyable. It was also a surprise to me that diplomacy was so; well so multifaceted and so very crucial it is in our modern society.

One of the subject areas that I enjoyed the most was that based on the non-state actor and the impact they have in diplomacy, it is quite amazing when you think about their significance and the influence they have in modern politics. During the task of attempting to compile my essay I read quite a bit on track II diplomacy, this was definitely an eye opener for me, until this module…call me naive I never knew that so many ‘regular Joes” were so influential in the political sphere to the point that they were called upon to help assist in political discussions, confidence building measures and peace building measures. The world relies heavily on informal political actors, they play a very important role within our international community during times of crisis, in its entirety diplomacy is no longer restricted to particular group of individuals, so many other individuals or groups can take on the diplomacy challenge within their own right.

From the various classes that I have attended, I can clearly see how the new diplomacy differs from the old, but this is inevitable. We live in a globalised world, we interact closely with each other and in this modern world things change quickly and the style and manner in which we deal with international relations will continue to change as it has been doing over the centuries.

The subject of diplomacy is more interesting than I thought and my perceptions of diplomacy have totally changed, watch out everyone I may even become a diplomat myself…..how scary....